1 / 38

Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework (XMSF) C4I Testbed

Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework (XMSF) C4I Testbed. Mark Pullen , George Mason University LTC Ken Wilson , Army Model and Simulation Office Michael Hieb , ALION Science & Technology Andreas Tolk , Old Dominion University. Our Past or Our Future ?.

claire-rivera
Download Presentation

Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework (XMSF) C4I Testbed

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework (XMSF) C4I Testbed • MarkPullen, George Mason University • LTC Ken Wilson, Army Model and Simulation Office • Michael Hieb, ALION Science & Technology • AndreasTolk, Old Dominion University

  2. Our Past or Our Future? The Tower of BabelAn engineering marvel reduced to rubleby a “confusion of languages”. XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  3. What Is Battle Management Language (BML)? • BML is the unambiguous language used to: • Command and control forces and equipment conducting military operations and • To provide for situational awareness and a shared, common operational picture. XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  4. Four Principles of BML • BML must be unambiguous. • BML must use the existing C4ISR data representations when possible. • BML must allow all elements to communicate information pertaining to themselves, their mission and their environment in order to create situational awareness and a shared, common operational picture. • BML must not constrain the full expression of a commander’s intent. XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  5. Do we have a BML? • Battle Management Language currently exists. • Used on a daily basis to command and control live forces. • Vocabulary defined by the doctrinal manuals (such as the Army’s FM 101-5-1) • Associated grammar defined in other doctrinal manuals and from years of use. • It’s focus is human – to – human. XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  6. The Problem • Our current BML is a loosely knit “language” tailored to interpersonal communication. • Its vocabulary is found in doctrinal manuals, but it lacks clearly delineated rules governing its use (semantics and syntax). • It is riddled with ambiguity and overlapping definitions. • As such, it is incapable of transitioning to the full range of automation that the Army is implementing. • It will not support the integration of advanced modeling and simulation with “digitized” command and control. XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  7. The Problem (cont.) • If we are to train as we fight, then we must be able to communicate command and control information via the same C4I devices in all environments: • Live training and operations (soldier to soldier). • Simulation training, mission rehearsal, and decision aids with the C4I devices stimulating and being stimulated by simulations. (Live, Constructive, Virtual simulation) XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  8. BML Scope BML Order C4I C4I Simulation Unmanned Platforms XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  9. Past Efforts • Eagle BML/CCSIL • Very Structured • Required detailed knowledge of what was needed by the simulation • Not familiar or friendly to the operational user • Specific to application/simulation XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  10. Commonality CCSIL USMTF JVMF Structured messages Very little free text Data structures Complex (structures) Enumerated (types) Alphanumeric Character Boolean Floating point Structured messages Free text Data structures Complex Enumerated A- Alphabetic L- Lower case letters N- Numeric (0-9) B- Blank spaces S- Special characters E- Extended special characters / - Field marker : - Colon Non-printing special characters Structured messages Free text (ANSI ASCII) Data structures Complex Enumerated DFI (Data Field Identifier) DUI (Data User Identifier) Numeric Problem area Data structure of messages favors data base application Structure built into free text areas would expand data base applicability Structure built into free text areas focused on the 5 Ws (Who, What, When, Where, Why) and coordination information Well thought out relationships between tables built into the data base can facilitate user friendly GUI applications (drop down menus, graphics, automatic fills) for creating messages XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  11. Essence of Order Resides in the 5 Ws The 5 Ws HOW: In mission type orders, how to do a task is left up to the subordinate. The “general” how for the order itself is found in the context of the Commander’s Intent and the Concept of Operations. WHO: which unit is to accomplish the task. - Normally identified by a Unit_ID. - When Unit_ID is in doubt, could be identified by location. - Could be identified by ROLE (Main Effort, etc.) WHAT: the task to be accomplished. - Could be either an operation or ARTEP task. - Selection maybe dependent on how much the higher commander wants to limit his subordinate. The more specific the task the less it conforms to “mission type”. WHEN: the timing of the task. - Control type (AT a certain time, NLT a certain time, EVENT_PLUS_T (D+1, H+2, etc.) - Parameters: (DTG, Event, Time, Unit_ID, etc..) WHERE: the location for accomplishing the task. - Lat/Long, UTM, MGRS, etc. - Terrain_Feature_ID, Graphic_Control_Measure_ID WHY: the reason for accomplishing the task. - Purpose term. (Attrit, Defeat, Destroy, Contain, Clear, etc..) - Parameters: (dependent on the term but required for clarification: Destroy what? Enemy Force, Terrain Feature) XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  12. Additional Information for Coordination / Synchronization • Information that does not fit the 5Ws format. • Priority of effort. • Priority of support. • Weapons control status. • Mission Oriented Protective Posture. • Etc. This information is/can be represented in data formats. XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  13. Sources of BML Doctrine Messages FM-101-5 BML USMTF JVMF ARTEPs CCSIL TADIL Data Models Eagle BML JCDB Data Model OTH Gold ADAP3 XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  14. BML Concept Data/Object Models Messages Doctrine Doctrinal Manuals XML/ Data Replication Tactical C4ISR Data Model BML XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  15. Army, Joint and NATODoctrine Hierarchies XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  16. BML Scalability XML/ Data Replication NATO Doctrine LC2IEDM International BML XML/ Data Replication Joint Doctrine C2 Core Data Model Joint BML XML/ Data Replication FM-1-02 JCDB Data Model Army BML XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  17. WHO ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION identifier ORGANIZATION-TYPE identifier (FK) … ORGANIZATION-TYPE ORGANIZATION-TYPE identifier ORGANIZATION-TYPE function code ORGANIZATION-TYPE echelon code … ORGANIZATION-TASK ORGANIZATION identifier (FK) ORGANIZATION-TASK identifier TASK Identifier (FK) ORGANIZATION-TASK requirement category code ORGANIZATION-TASK rejection code ORGANIZATION-TASK support requirement amplification text …. WHAT TASK TASK identifier (FK) TASK name TASK desired effect description code TASK start date TASK end date TASK estimated duration TASK minimum duration TASK maximum duration … WHY • ACTION category code • EVENT • TASK • NULL WHEN WHERE ACTION-LOCATION ACTION identifier (FK) ACTION-LOCATION index ACTION-LOCATION latitude coordinate ACTION-LOCATION longitude coordinate … ACTION ACTION identifier ACTION category code ACTION verb code … 5 Ws in JCDB

  18. Subset of LC2IEDM TablesShowing the 5 Ws

  19. Why migrate to LC2IEDM? • History of LC2IEDM • Developed by NATO data modeling experts (ATCCIS Permanent Working Group) • Based on the Information Exchange Requirements on the Battlefield • Unambiguous Representation of Information • Extensible Data Model • NATO Standard ADatP-32 • Use by the NATO Data Administration Group • Core Data Model for various C4I Systems • Reference Data Model for various Simulation Systems • Data Model for Multilateral Interoperability Program (MIP) XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  20. High Level View of LC2IEDM • Very Similar to the JCDB structure • Deals with the 5 Ws • Very well documented • Tables • Attributes • Relations • Extension rules • XML tags XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  21. International NDAG IER between C4I Systems Standard Data Elements MIP Data Exchange German Data Management Group Reference Data Model for Simulation Systems France, Italy, Spain, … New NATO Nations United States Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport, RI The Technical Corporation Program (TTCP) Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA Battlefield Generic Hub Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria, VA Data Alignment Studies Who is using LC2IEDM Overall, growing interest in LC2IEDM XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  22. Benefits from BML • Increase in preciseness and conciseness of communication between human operators. • Improvement of Joint interoperability due to language built into database and linked to doctrinal sources. • Improvement of Combined/Coalition interoperability due to reduction of “free text” and doctrinal language linked through common database. • Increased interoperability between C4ISR systems and simulations through: • Adoption of doctrinal terms and graphics. • Relating terms and graphics through data model to physical aspects of battlefield. • Adoption of structure in messages to reduce “free text”. XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  23. The SIMCI / CECOM Testbed • The U.S. Army is supporting R&D in the domain of Battle Management Languages (BML) • A Common Syntax and Semantics for C4I, M&S and Robotics • BML Semantics are based on Approved Doctrinal Terms • BML Testbed presented in December 2002 • BML Interface (Develops Digitized Operations Order) • CAPES (C4I Component for COA Development) • Multi-Source Database extending Army Standard Database(JCDB) • OneSAF Testbed (M&S Component for COAA) XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  24. BML GUI XML – BML Parser C4ISI Multi-Source Database Augmented with BML CAPES OTB BML acts as the common denominator

  25. Objectives and Implementing Phases • Phase 1 – Bringing the Testbed into the XMSF (and NCES) Environment • Embedding all components into XML/SOAP wrappers • Replacing the ODBC protocols with XML/SOAP protocols • Phase 2 – Introducing International Data Standards • Converting the Multisource DB from US Army JCDB to NATO LC2IEDM • Phase 3 – Introducing Joint C4I and M&S Components • Adding GCCS/NCES • Adding JSAF • Phase 4 – Extending BML to Joint Doctrines • Develop Joint BML Methodology • Phase 5 – Distributing the Testbed nationwide • Develop Website to Distribute Testbed Infrastructure to Qualified XMSF Partners XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  26. BML Testbed (February 2003) BML GUI • Develops Digitized • US Army Operations Order ODBC CAPES OneSAF TB Multi Source DB ODBC ODBC Based on the U.S. Army’s JCDB XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  27. XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 1) XML/SOAP BML GUI • Develops Digitized • US Army Operations Order XMSF XML/SOAP XML/SOAP CAPES XML/SOAP Multi Source DB OneSAF TB XMSF XMSF Based on the U.S. Army’s JCDB XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  28. XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 2) XML/SOAP BML GUI XMSF XML/SOAP CAPES OneSAF TB XML/SOAP Multi Source DB XMSF XMSF XML/SOAP Based on the LC2IEDM XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  29. XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 3) XML/SOAP XML/SOAP • Transition to NCES prototype • when available BML GUI XML/SOAP OneSAF TB GCCS/ Planning App XMSF XMSF XMSF XML/SOAP XML/SOAP Multi Source DB JSAF CAPES XMSF XMSF XML/SOAP Based on the LC2IEDM XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  30. XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 4) BML GUI XML/SOAP XML/SOAP Joint XML/SOAP Army OneSAF TB GCCS/ Planning App XMSF XMSF XMSF XML/SOAP XML/SOAP Multi Source DB JSAF CAPES XMSF XMSF XML/SOAP Based on the LC2IEDM XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  31. XMSF C4I Testbed (Phase 5) • Testbed Infrastructure is distributed to Qualified XMSF Partners • Distributed via a Secure Website • Configuration Controlled and Managed • Available for Experimentation, Testing and Development • Phase 5 can started after Phase 1 and run in parallel with the remaining Phases • Widespread Use of a Distributed Testbed will Facilitate Incorporation of M&S Functionality into Developing C4I Systems • Ability to Interoperate with C4I Systems will be a crucial part of XMSF Acceptance XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  32. Benefits of a XMSF C4I Testbed • Harmonization of Initialization Data for M&S Components, C4I Components, and Robotic Forces • Extensible Solution for additional Components • C4I Components (e.g., NATO ACCS, Service C4I Systems) • M&S Functionality (Maneuver, Chem/Bio, Logistics, etc.) • Develop Configurations for BML based on various Doctrines • NATO Doctrine • Joint Doctrine • Service Doctrine XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  33. Backups

  34. Implementation Plan • Two year duration • Participating Organizations • ACS / CECOM RDEC • VMASC / ODU • ALION • C3I Center / GMU XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  35. Phasing • FY03 • Phase 1 – Bringing the Testbed into the XMSF (and NCES) Environment • Phase 2 – Introducing International Data Standards • Phase 5 – Distributing the Testbed nationwide • FY04 • Phase 3 – Introducing Joint C4I and M&S Components • Future Years • Phase 4 – Extending BML to Joint Doctrines • Phase 5 – Distributing the Testbed nationwide XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  36. XMSF Benefits of a C4I Testbed • Widespread Use of a Distributed Testbed will Facilitate Incorporation of M&S Functionality into Developing C4I Systems • Ability to Interoperate with C4I Systems will be a crucial part of XMSF Acceptance XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  37. X X CMD TAC X X TOC REAR II II TOC TOC II TOC Past C4I – Simulation Interfaces • Prior to automated C4I devices. Field Environment Simulation Center Tactical Communications Or Simulated Tactical Communications Workstation Controllers Training Audience FM Voice, USMTF, MSE, AM RATT, Land Line, FAX Manual translation of orders into simulation keyboard input. XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

  38. X X CMD TAC X X TOC REAR II II TOC TOC II TOC Past C4I – Simulation Interfaces • Advent of automated C4I devices. Field Environment Simulation Center Tactical Communications Or Simulated Tactical Communications Workstation Controllers Training Audience FM Voice, MSE, AM RATT, Land Line, FAX MCS USMTF Trans AFATDS Trans Combination of manual and automated translation of information – no OPORDS XMSF C4I TestBed May 2003

More Related